Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The OSD as written today is largely license-neutral, and it concerns > >> me when people want to change the OSD to prefer some licenses over > >> others. > > > > Who, for example? If those "people" aren't on the OSI Board (I'm not, > > for example), then they only have opinions like other featherless > > bipeds, and not a direct say in the matter. > > Please refer to Ian Lance Taylor's recent message, where he said: > "Very few people thought that Sean's license was not OSD-compliant. I > can only recall one. I argued against the license, but I said right > from the start that I thought it was OSD-compliant."
Note that my statement is no way conflicts with Rick's. Rick said the OSD is largely license-neutral. I agree. My message was in reference to the OSI. That is, the organization, not the set of definitions. (In case you don't know, I'm not on the OSI board either.) I happen to think that the OSI should also be largely license-neutral within the broader goal of working for the good of the community. That doesn't mean that I think the OSI should approve a license which in my opinion will harm the community. I believe that a license can be OSD-compliant without being OSI-approved. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
